Discussions on a ranges of philosophical issues including the nature of truth and reality, personal identity, mind-body theories, epistemology, justification of beliefs, argumentation and logic, philosophy of religion, free will and determinism, etc.

Of course, the extraordinary list of fine-tunings necessary for the universe and life on earth to exist is beyond rational belief to believe such things could occur by happenstance - even given unlimited amounts of time!

So, is it rational to believe such a huge number and range of things with such incredibly narrow parameters could have developed from a non-intelligent sources? Ask yourself, what can non-intelligent things do? First, can they create themselves? Can they think, see, organize, strategize, position themselves or other things, see advantages or opportunities? Of course not! But what exists - from the universe's very first MINUTES, shows designs, organization, and adherence of spectacular consistencies and interactivities that modern science, our best minds (beings with intelligence), using our best technological analysis and tools, can scarcely understand ourselves.

Time is not on the side of those who think a universe could exist independent of God: The Big Bang shows such things immediately coming into existence - not over billions of years - but in minutes, incredible things instantly coming into existence that have these astonishing designs and capabilities, obeying complex laws, astoundingly interacting with purpose and precision - with a power and on a scale that is mind-boggling. And EVERYTHING that exists is entirely dependent upon what came into existence and happened in just the very first minutes of the Big Bang.

Ask yourself, is it rational to believe that, what instantly came into physical existence, with such complex designs and functionalities, interacting with astonishing precision - and on a scale that is mind-boggling, and within mere MINUTES - could have happened without some great Intelligence of great power behind it?

The thing is, I think, if people only listen to what they want to that merely re-enforces their own pre-decided conclusions, yet without truly sifting through the evidences to see what they actually suggest, then then they were never serious about finding the truth about God to begin with. One who does not want to know or doesn't really care about the truth of the question of whether God exists, or "if" He does, whether it really matters - well, such people will never know the truth, because they aren't truly open to it. And then so often these same unbelievers will accuse Christians of being close-minded or ignorant simpletons. But many unbelievers don't seem to realize that many Christians once had their very same attitudes and doubts, before they were saved. They struggled to faith, only very gradually perceiving answers they came to, and only after a long period of carefully considering the evidences. So it's more than merely a question of whether there are powerful evidences - as one must ask themself whether they truly are open to investigating and accepting wherever the evidence leads them.

No. As the question of whether God exists has nothing whatsoever to do with HOW LONG it took for Him to create things - as that is an entirely separate question. Even WHICH is actually God, as opposed to the list of asserted gods, is a totally separate question. Once one realizes that what exists is individually, phenomenally complex, filled with extraordinary interactive designs and stunning capabilities, and with mathematically razor-thin margins of probability, and that blind, non-intelligent things simply cannot - no matter with WHAT length of time - A) cannot create themselves and B) require immense intelligence beyond our own, and C) cannot develop intelligence (as all such things are like dumb rocks) - once one realizes these things take an eternal Intelligence of unfathomable power, then their search should be on to discover that God. But many people, while recognizing the necessity of such an Intelligent Being, go no further and are quite content to believe in an impersonal, Deist-like god. As they see the necessity for a god, but they don't want to know if the REAL, personal God exists. Because that God appears to require things of them. As opposed to that little god they see in the mirror every morning (themself) - which won't require anything more than what they want it to.

Well, it is a view, a belief, an opinion, based on or in accordance with reason or logic.

If we look a classical Christianity and it's notion of God ( Unmoved mover, Uncaused cause, etc) you see that it is very rational.

If you look at what some non-Christians THINK and misrepresent it to be then yes, it is irrational.

Its sort of like the God question itself, if you believe God to be something "infantile" like a "old man with a beard riding around on clouds" then yes, the whole notion of God is irrational.

The issue is, at times, that there are some believers themselves that believe in an irrational God.

Like YEC.

From a certain perspective ( scientific evidence for an old earth) sure BUT from that very same ( scientific evidence based on observation), to believe that the universe "just happened" is irrational ( since there is no evidence that things just come into be from nothing).

Paul: BUT from that very same ( scientific evidence based on observation), to believe that the universe "just happened" is irrational ( since there is no evidence that things just come into be from nothing)

I don't think a lot of atheists have thought out the issue that all things have to have a source. Or that blind, non-intelligent things can't develop intelligence or staggering abilities - no matter how long they exist. I think some atheists obviously realize SOMETHING had to have first existed and that the only way it could was for that "Something" to be eternal. And one would think they'd also have to conclude that that eternal "Something" also had to be unfathomably intelligent and powerful. And so they should see these basic characteristics/capabilities of the universe's Source, even before pondering the Source's identity - which is a logically connected question they should be asking themselves.

So, for atheists, how are the staggering scientific observations of the things on the list in my initial post above possible without their common Source being eternal, astonishingly intelligent and powerful? Especially the Big Bang, in which nothing physically existed in one moment, and mere moments later awesome things of incredible designs and incredible, precise functionalities were perfectly interacting on a unbelievable scale?

Paul: BUT from that very same ( scientific evidence based on observation), to believe that the universe "just happened" is irrational ( since there is no evidence that things just come into be from nothing)

I don't think a lot of atheists have thought out the issue that all things have to have a source. Or that blind, non-intelligent things can't develop intelligence or staggering abilities - no matter how long they exist. I think some atheists obviously realize SOMETHING had to have first existed and that the only way it could was for that "Something" to be eternal. And one would think they'd also have to conclude that that eternal "Something" also had to be unfathomably intelligent and powerful. And so they should see these basic characteristics/capabilities of the universe's Source, even before pondering the Source's identity - which is a logically connected question they should be asking themselves.

So, for atheists, how are the staggering scientific observations of the things on the list in my initial post above possible without their common Source being eternal, astonishingly intelligent and powerful? Especially the Big Bang, in which nothing physically existed in one moment, and mere moments later awesome things of incredible designs and incredible, precise functionalities were perfectly interacting on a unbelievable scale?

A number of them do, they just don't know what came before. Some will say some intelligent non deity was there, others say another universe, etc.

No. As the question of whether God exists has nothing whatsoever to do with HOW LONG it took for Him to create things - as that is an entirely separate question. Even WHICH is actually God, as opposed to the list of asserted gods, is a totally separate question. Once one realizes that what exists is individually, phenomenally complex, filled with extraordinary interactive designs and stunning capabilities, and with mathematically razor-thin margins of probability, and that blind, non-intelligent things simply cannot - no matter with WHAT length of time - A) cannot create themselves and B) require immense intelligence beyond our own, and C) cannot develop intelligence (as all such things are like dumb rocks) - once one realizes these things take an eternal Intelligence of unfathomable power, then their search should be on to discover that God. But many people, while recognizing the necessity of such an Intelligent Being, go no further and are quite content to believe in an impersonal, Deist-like god. As they see the necessity for a god, but they don't want to know if the REAL, personal God exists. Because that God appears to require things of them. As opposed to that little god they see in the mirror every morning (themself) - which won't require anything more than what they want it to.

I was referring to the statement about being an illogical God, and they state that God had to make the world several thousand years ago due to what they read out of a few sections of text. Add to that all of the proof and evidence of a far older creation and their view of God is somewhat illogical.

Ah, but as there MUST have been a Source for the universe, and so that Source had to have the attributes of being eternal, of unparalleled power and intelligence - in other words, that Source is a Deity in comparison to us, especially as all we are and know came for that So the question is, was this a Deity that we've been told about, or that has tried to interact with us - what's the evidence for that Deity (hint: the evidence is overwhelming as it is massive - see the first post in this thread!).

Kid: others say another universe, etc..

Which solves nothing about the ULTIMATE Source of the universe, as other universes, no matter how many in a chain of them, require a beginning link in the chain. And so, where did that beginning "link" come from??? Not to mention, the attributes of the Source of any supposed first link likewise requires it to have been eternal, all-powerful and intelligent.

When we understand the Christian, rational view of God ( the Aristotelian/Thomistic view or classical Theistic view), we understand that God MUST exist and the mere fact that anything exists, is proof ( rational proof) that God exists.

Paul: When we understand the Christian, rational view of God ( the Aristotelian/Thomistic view or classical Theistic view), we understand that God MUST exist and the mere fact that anything exists, is proof ( rational proof) that God exists.

So, as this "rational proof" seems so incredibly widespread and obvious, anyone care to speculate as to how anyone could not grasp it to be true? Why can't so many - especially scientists or those with significant scientific knowledge - fail to see what seems stunningly obvious to so many others? What's going on with such people?

Paul: When we understand the Christian, rational view of God ( the Aristotelian/Thomistic view or classical Theistic view), we understand that God MUST exist and the mere fact that anything exists, is proof ( rational proof) that God exists.

So, as this "rational proof" seems so incredibly widespread and obvious, anyone care to speculate as to how anyone could not grasp it to be true? Why can't so many - especially scientists or those with significant scientific knowledge - fail to see what seems stunningly obvious to so many others? What's going on with such people?

I didn't catch where it was said such rational proofs were "widespread" or "obvious". Many don't understand what PaulS, Byblos, myself, Jac and many others so evidently see which boils down to the necessity of a super-intelligent, all-powerful and eternal necessary being.

As for how many scientists miss the logic of such, well it'd be quite easy because such isn't necessary for them to visit to do what they do. Just because you're a scientist (or have significant knowledge) doesn't mean you have a deep grasp of all knowledge, or more simply, the reasoning and logic foundational to scientific pursuit. Scientists are today specialists in an area, and lower areas of logic and critical thinking may not be necessary for them to visit. All of us today often specialise in a particular area, or we probably can't get ahead in any profession. I don't need to know about microelectronics, for example, to do what I do on the Internet or with software loaded up on computers.

Going back 1000 years, it was perhaps possible to be across the board by the end of one's lifetime. Yet, you know, once the scaffolds are built, and people are focusing on their work above, they don't often think to visit the scaffolds that allow them to be up there doing what they do. Such isn't necessary for us to do our jobs - we just consider it someone elses domain.

Such is human knowledge. Some might care to look at the foundations, find it interesting, and indeed reclaim knowledge that is often neglected and misunderstood today. Others may just laugh and think it absurd to consider such outdated and stupid ideas people 100s and 1000s of years ago had. We're so much brighter and advanced today we moderns are. Yet, much of what we have today knowedge-wise is built upon the foundations of thoughts and reasoning often considered stupid to modern people for no other reason than it is old.

"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

One would think, scientists, those with doctorates in astrophysics, physics, chemistry, biology, anatomy, planetary sciences, etc., that are also self-declared atheists, are people who would have well thought out their personal reasoning for unbelief in the necessity for God's existence. Even if their expertise doesn't cross beyond their own training and discipline, it is more than enough to see what is obvious about the impossibility of an uncaused world and universe of astonishing functionalities, as such things are unmistakeable within their own areas of expertise. And I think those unbelieving scientists deliberately choose to reject the obvious, mostly, because they don't want to believe what they should know far more than the common man does. You'll never have enough evidence to believe what you don't want to, and such scientists continue to EMOTIONALLY rationalize their entrenched unbelief.

Paul: When we understand the Christian, rational view of God ( the Aristotelian/Thomistic view or classical Theistic view), we understand that God MUST exist and the mere fact that anything exists, is proof ( rational proof) that God exists.

So, as this "rational proof" seems so incredibly widespread and obvious, anyone care to speculate as to how anyone could not grasp it to be true? Why can't so many - especially scientists or those with significant scientific knowledge - fail to see what seems stunningly obvious to so many others? What's going on with such people?

It's a valid question.
Some feel that the answer should be simple, that understanding God should be "easy". Which is very weird because of God does exist then he is infinitely more "complex" then His creation ( the universe) and NO ONE things that understanding the universe should be easy, right?
And understanding God is ANYTHING BUT EASY !
Some actually think that God is a man with a beard riding around in the clouds.
Look at it this way, when you have some people arguing that belief ( what we believe in) is NOT a choice ONLY when what we believe in is based on "science", then you can understand the logical inconsistency and even contradiction ( believing in an absolute negative, other than a logical contradiction for example) that some skeptics hold.
To trust in science, to uphold science as the ONLY way to understand things ( a valid view by the way) and YET DENY what science leads you inevitably to believe ( that things have an nature, "goal-orientedness", potentiality, actuality, etc) doesn't even make any sense, but yet...

Look, I have come to realize that many non-believers simply do not WANT to believe and while there are some that truly have a desire to understand, most simply do not.
They are totally ok with believing that this is all there is and we are nothing but matter and mean nothing and YET live their lives differently.